And why do you believe the US has to be the country to "stem the tide"?
Hell we have to get our foot in the door, Or on the boat, first....

Posted by: bertzel

Is it your belief that because we cannot unilaterally stop the problem it excuses our own inaction on the issue? What makes you think the US is the only country that will be (or already is) acting on it? Sure, we can't "force" other countries (such as China) to do what we do. So what? We can, through diplomacy try to get them to see our point of view, and if we find ways to make cleaner technology or even alternative ways of energy production that is certainly something we can share, and would be of benefit to Americans as well.

If this alternative energy is so great why can't it sell itself? How would you like to be in an electric golf cart car out on the road during a blizzard or in a couple hour long traffic jam during the summer, but as long as the libs are happy who cares?

Toles, did you read Martin Weil's story on the January DC weather wrap up yesterday on page B6 of TWP? January 2011 has to be one of the coldest if not the coldest in DC history and December 2010 - January 2011 has to be one of the coldest 60 day periods in DC weather history, but in true warmer reporting fashion Weil, only comments that "this January was only the third in the past 20 years without a single day in the 60s."

OH right....I keep forgetting that the USA is the most powerful, richest, smartest and leading nation of this planet...my bad.
And please. No need to show me the door. I've already been escorted there many times.

~~~China is going to break records in coal use for a long time. jhnnywalker is right insomuch that we must continue to debate but for all our carbon savings (and associated massive costs), we won't be able to stem the tide of the rest of the planet's use of fossil fuels.
ranger~~~

OF course China is going to 'break records'
That is where all the INDUSTRIALIZATION IS. All manufacturing requires energy and I guess right now coal is the leading source of such energy. NO?
and per your "political take"...seems to me it is working both ways.

china is leading the way in production of wind turbines and solar panel...yet must still rely on coal for current production.

Africa....I'd say jobs.

USA should 'step up' and understand this is the 'wave of the future', regardless of any global/ climate change.

Pdog should note that the gov. of her/his state is against this production. Surprised that that pdog has not mentioned that fact in his/her comments.

Posted by: bertzel | February 6, 2011 2:53 PM

------------------

China is going to break records in coal use for a long time. jhnnywalker is right insomuch that we must continue to debate but for all our carbon savings (and associated massive costs), we won't be able to stem the tide of the rest of the planet's use of fossil fuels.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, even when it comes to the Democratic Party, but the emerging yet-unstated reality is that the Obama Administration support of climate change and alternate energy is only an inch deep. They want it as a political issue to hammer the GOP. That means no compromise.

We could negotiate a way to off-ramp fossil fuels, long-term, but only if there is a deal. I sense the Democrats don't want a deal.

I would say, as I have before, the debate over what we CAN do, how effective it would be, and what it would cost to be effective is a debate worth having and one that deniers avoid by simply saying there is no problem.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | February 6, 2011 12:52 PM |

----------------------

Happy to debate. How do we leverage China to use alternate fuel sources rather than fossil fuels? They are all over Africa and other countries securing fossil fuels and natural mineral rights. What's their incentive to change?

The long-awaited Obama Energy Policy must address this problem. What do the climate change theorists have to help out this policy discussion other than idealism?

I submit that based on the near-future consumption of fossil fuels of China and India due to their rapid growing economies, that ALL of our efforts would not put a dent into total world carbon output.

What say you?

Posted by: pararanger22

I would say, as I have before, the debate over what we CAN do, how effective it would be, and what it would cost to be effective is a debate worth having and one that deniers avoid by simply saying there is no problem.

What Frank Luntz directed about the use of the phrase 'global warming' isn't relevant.

I have no reason to dispute that the organizations you cite may have used the term 'climate change' from the beginning.

It is, however, disingenuous to suggest that the climate change community (Toles, celebrities, media, other academics, Al Gore) did not use the term 'global warming.' Like a lot of folks, I've followed this debate for a long time. The changing claims of the Left about not only the name but also the causes, the severity, and the cherry-picking of weather incidents as being related to climate change are breathtaking.

Let's take the debate a slightly different direction:

Let's say the US takes all the precautions; makes all the changes TT, you, and the rest of the Left-Team suggest.

I submit that based on the near-future consumption of fossil fuels of China and India due to their rapid growing economies, that ALL of our efforts would not put a dent into total world carbon output.

Warmer logic equals the absence of winter snow proves AGW and more winter snowstorms prove AGW. Isn't warmer science wonderful? So why wouldn't Mann want to have his UVA records made public since according to the above false-proof his theory cannot be disproved? The logical answer is no, because warmers are a cult wanting to enslave people through oppressive regulation, oppressive taxation and oppressive energy rationing.

paranger -- You appear to be well-versed in various read-and-repeat arguments and/or analogies on both sides of the discussion. Your suggestion that AGW theory proponents switched to the term "climate change" to somehow account for cold days or seasons is false. Scientists have long referred to the phenomenon as 'climate change'; hence, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1988) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992). Obviously, 'climate change' is the more accurate phrase because, while we humans could handle a few degrees more of warmth, it is the associated changes to various aspects of our climate that will be more problematic. Within the public lexicon, it was the word man for the Bush administration, Frank Luntz, who issued the directive to never use the phrase 'global warming' because that sounded too catastrophic.

paranger -- You appear to be well-versed in various read-and-repeat arguments and/or analogies on both sides of the discussion. Your suggestion that AGW theory proponents switched to the term "climate change" to somehow account for cold days or seasons is false. Scientists have long referred to the phenomenon as 'climate change'; hence, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1988) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992). Obviously, 'climate change' is the more accurate phrase because, while we humans could handle a few degrees more of warmth, it is the associated changes to various aspects of our climate that will be more problematic. Within the public lexicon, it was the word man for the Bush administration, Frank Luntz, who issued the directive to never use the phrase 'global warming' because that sounded too catastrophic.

PrairieDog60 wrote: So, 95 out of 100 doctors tell you that growth needs to be removed or it will kill you, and you still choose to listen to the 5 that say it's just a shadow on the X-ray? Good luck with that. And good luck with your task of disproving 95% of the people in the world who are credentialed in this discipline.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | February 5, 2011 2:22 PM

-----------------------
dennis_donaghey wrote:

So let me ask you pararanger, if you have an illness, do you listen to what your doctors say, or do you "believe" in faith healing? It boggles the mind that the vast majority of climate scientists are dismissed by pararanger who believes the few who are subsidized by big oil.

Just exactly who has more to gain? The entire scientific community, or the few whose funding depends upon their unsupported views of denial?

Posted by: dennis_donaghey | February 5, 2011 8:29 AM

-------------------------

Dear dalyplanet,

Why do the Liberal bloggers always use the scientist/doctor analogy?

Prairiedog60 and dennis_donaghey both used it in the same 6 hour period?

@dalyplanet - You said, "Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view."

This was a quote from the #1 AGW cheerleader Robert Watson, chair of the IPCC 1997-2002 and is currently the Chief Scientist and Senior Adviser for Sustainable Development for the World Bank. While the true believers will not admit to a 'little' distortion from the IPCC at least Dr. Watson spoke to it.

If 'the plan' was decentralized electricity and conservation as you suggest I would not care if the reasons were actual or overstated. This is not the plan though. Is there NO concern on your part that the number one cheerleader for AGM is employed by a Financial Institution, World Bank.

~~~~Everything you post on this topic is fuzzy, outdated, disproven, out of context, exaggeration, or just plain wrong.~~~

Again NO. Posts from Mike Halpert, deputy director of the federal Climate Prediction Center, and Louis Uccellini, director of the government's National Centers for Environmental Prediction were up to date and factual stating that weather in the US and elsewhere can NOT be attributed to AGW. You do not like to hear that but it is true. These guys are THE experts.

Climatology is the study of statistics, derived from data sets, smoothed , compiled, merged, and averaged. They are just a part of the earths scientific community, closer related to Psychiatrists than Medical Doctors. Geologists, Meteorologists, Chemists, Oceanographers, Agronomists, and other Climatologists disagree with IPCC and were not included in the survey you quote.

Pdog I would ask that you separate the belief in the warming from the proposed plan for the cure. There are many ways to reduce carbon burning much different than those proposed by IPCC. Tesla had a much different plan for electricity than Edison but we have been following the Edison plan for 100 years. The problem with Tesla's plan is that it did not make money for Edison. I think it is time for change to the Tesla model. I think you believe that also.

Another argument of the believers is that mans CO2 is acidifying the ocean but part of 'the plan'(IPCC) is to vacuum CO2 from smokestacks and run a hose out to the Atlantic and pump it in.(simplified) Good plan ?? Plus either this IPCC acidification of the ocean worry is bogus or the IPCC CO2 hose in the ocean plan is bogus. Who to believe The IPCC or the IPCC or maybe not the IPCC.

daly, you really need to take a break from this. I'll address one more global warming comment from you, and then I have to let you go and remain in the land of denial. Everything you post on this topic is fuzzy, outdated, disproven, out of context, exaggeration, or just plain wrong.

You'll notice that Watson is focusing on "overstating the impact". What he was getting at is that there were indeed a few errors in the IPCC report that overstated some things, or simply misinterpreted others.

I'm not sure when your quote is from, but here's another quote from Watson, from March 2010;

“To suggest that the hacked e-mails or the identified inaccuracies in the IPCC Working Group II report undermine the broad evidence that the Earth’s climate is changing due to human activities, or that any talk of carbon emissions cuts should be suspended, is simply untenable. …The challenges of the skeptics must be fully addressed, …[but] We must not allow them to use the incident at [the University of East Anglia] or the mistakes in the IPCC report to distract us or derail the political will to safeguard the planet.”

In the same statement, he also said;

"In my opinion, there is no doubt that the evidence for human-induced climate change is irrefutable. The world’s leading scientists, many of whom have participated in the IPCC, overwhelmingly agree on two things:

• 1. What we’re experiencing cannot be attributed to natural variation in the climate over time, but is due to human activities.
• 2. If we do not act, climate change will continue apace with increasing droughts, floods and rising seas, leading to major damaging impacts to the natural world (loss of species and critical ecosystem services) and society (displaced human populations)."

In the quote you posted, he merely welcomes skeptics to introduce their evidence. He does NOT agree with any of the denier evidence up to this time. This is how science works.

Climate scientists are constantly running different scenarios, modifying the models, gathering new data, trying to see if something historically can point to the current trend being natural. So far 95% of them can't find any cause other than anthropogenic.

So, 95 out of 100 doctors tell you that growth needs to be removed or it will kill you, and you still choose to listen to the 5 that say it's just a shadow on the X-ray? Good luck with that. And good luck with your task of disproving 95% of the people in the world who are credentialed in this discipline.

@dalyplanet - You said, "Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view."

Like the Creationists think they should get top billing in any scientific discussion of evolution, because theirs is "a different view". Because they make their claims, somehow that entitles them to standing - and I guess it does, at least in Texas.

As FDR remarked, "Repetition of a lie does not transform it into a truth."

"The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened." Adding "We should always be challenged by sceptics. The IPCC’s job is to weigh up the evidence. If it can’t be dismissed, it should be included in the report. Point out it’s in the minority and, if you can’t say why it’s wrong, just say it’s a different view."

bert - I'm always in favor of Peace. Have a Peace sign on the back of my car.

If you're suggesting that we are now willing to regulate perchlorate because we're at peace, then I'm wondering what you mean (but I could be reading you wrong). A protracted war in Afghanistan. Drone attacks by US daily in Pakistan. A cobbled-together Iraq still swarming with US military contractors.

How come in almost all of Toles cartoons Republicans are seen as the arch enemy of everything. So Mr Toles just how much DOES the Democratic Party pay you every year? Or are elephants all that you can draw?

How come in almost all of Toles cartoons Republicans are seen as the arch enemy of everything. So Mr Toles just how much DOES the Democratic Party pay you every year? Or are elephants all that you can draw?

About time with the perchlorate regulation. Hopefully they'll be able to do something about getting it out of drinking water. BushCo, after "considering" the issue for six years, decided against regulating this stuff in 2008, after its own EPA said it should be regulated to one part per billion back in 2002 (but who believes in science anymore??). So, we could have had technology in place by now to remove it from drinking water. Children, and pregnant women and their babies, are at especially high risk from this stuff.

Another aspect of this problem is that perchlorate is in ground water and in many of the water supplies used to irrigate crops in California farmland. Chances are, if you're eating US-grown lettuce in the winter time, it's coming from CA, and has been watered with water containing perchlorate, and as you know, lettuce retains a lot of water.

The Pentagon faught against this in the Bush years, and so did the military contractors who make the rocket fuel that contains this stuff. To return once again to one of my favorite Republicans, what was it Ike said about the military industrial complex?

["Interesting comment. So the climate denialists, who do not have to prove anything, simply insert doubt are the "ones" you choose to believe. Not the 97% to 98% of the entire populace that has been trained in climate science. So let me ask you pararanger, if you have an illness, do you listen to what your doctors say, or do you "believe" in faith healing? It boggles the mind that the vast majority of climate scientists are dismissed by pararanger who believes the few who are subsidized by big oil. Just exactly who has more to gain? The entire scientific community, or the few whose funding depends upon their unsupported views of denial?"]

---------------------

Dear dennis_donaghey,

Apparently you don't blog very much in good old Toles' rant ranch. The doctor/scientist analogy has been used here before and in other WP blogs. I won't say that that is some Liberal talking point but it is has gone viral in the blogosphere. Thus, I'm unimpressed with your originality.

Some responses to your post:

1 - Climate deniers is a bad term. Liberals who are a millimeter deep in climate change knowledge trend and tend to put everyone who does not believe in climate change from A-Z in the stubborn and or stupid deniers' bin.

The fact is many of us believe in some aspects of climate change theory but not all, to whit, I believe that human activity has increased carbon output significantly. I do believe that less carbon pollution in the air is a good thing. I do not believe in the conclusion that increased carbon = man-made climate change. Period.

At risk of severely boring the other bloggers on the Toles' site, I will reiterate some of my problems with climate theory:

1 - When climate change used to be called 'global warming', climate change pundits tagged every hot day in winter as a 'you see!' moment. When we had 13 hurricanes off the coast in Florida one year we heard 'you see, global warming has started that!'

The next winter was one of the coldest and snowiest on record.

The next hurricane season, there was one minor hurricane. There have been very few since.

As you well know, we don't call 'global warming' 'global warming' anymore for those reasons listed above. It's now 'climate change'.

2 - The suppression of scientific challenges to climate change theory, to whit, that climate scientists at the University of East Anglia (a leader in the climate change theory world you cling to so ferociously) had colluded to withhold scientific information, interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, deleted raw data, or manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it merits.

["And let's not ignore the fact---yes, the fact--that January saw very weak job creation performance. This occurred with the GOP/conservatives/TPers taking over (infesting?) the House on Jan. 5, 2011. There is a obvious and clear connection--the GOP destroys jobs. But I'm sure conservatives/TPers will have plenty of excuses. Hey, Boehner. Where are the jobs? Where is your program for creating jobs? Why the focus on repealing PPACA when people need and want (unless you're a TPer) jobs."]

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 4, 2011 1:34 PM

----------------------------------

Dear ptgrunner,

I noted with interest your mental-midget, blog post from 5 FEB 11, childishly blasting the GOP for not doing anything about jobs in the first 25 days of their new-found leadership of the House and increased numbers in the Senate.

Let's fast-forward to FEB 5, 2011, when the monthly unemployment report was posted, to whit:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The unemployment rate is suddenly sinking at the fastest pace in a half-century, falling to 9 percent from 9.8 percent in just two months -- the most encouraging sign for the job market since the recession ended."]

-------------

Now, based on your own immortal, Liberal logic, you cursed the GOP for not/not creating new jobs in their first 28 days in power. Conservatives across the Nation respond with their humblest of apologies:

We're sorry it took 29 days.

ptgrunner: You've trapped yourself in your own web. You have no where to run/no where to hide.

Pararanger wrote: "We are being propagandized on this climate bull to our ultimate ruin."
__________________________________________

Interesting comment. So the climate denialists, who do not have to prove anything, simply insert doubt are the "ones" you choose to believe. Not the 97% to 98% of the entire populace that has been trained in climate science.

So let me ask you pararanger, if you have an illness, do you listen to what your doctors say, or do you "believe" in faith healing? It boggles the mind that the vast majority of climate scientists are dismissed by pararanger who believes the few who are subsidized by big oil.

Just exactly who has more to gain? The entire scientific community, or the few whose funding depends upon their unsupported views of denial?

"When gas gets to be $10 or $20 a gallon, come talk to me about economics."

pararanger22 wrote:

"Gas is $8.50 a gallon in the UK. We'll come talk to you soon."

Prairie Dog wrote:

"Not sure of your point ranger. Gas hit $4 a gallon here in 2008, and the ripple effects were huge. Gas has always been more expensive in Europe than here. They're a bit more adapted to it. The US is not. Even $5 a gallon gas would drive trucking companies, tourist businesses and others out of business, not to mention what it would do to farmers and food prices in the US. The price is kept artificially low here precisely because of these things. If Americans paid what Europe, Japan, and others pay for gasoline, it would devistate the US economy, and those ripple effects would move through the rest of the world in a hurry."

---------------------

Silly doggie. I wrote that because you wrote:

"When gas gets to be $10 or $20 a gallon, come talk to me about economics."

so I came to talk to you about the high prices here, close to $10 a gallon...not sure why you don't understand your own point.

You make an interesting point though. Could you explain how (you explained why already) the US artificially keeps prices lower than Europe and Japan?

By the way, the Europeans are not adapting well to $8.50 gasoline, despite the BBC having someone on the radio or TV talking about climate change EVERY SINGLE DAY. It's such bull - just a way of keeping folks from going ballistic about fuel prices 'a well chums, we're ruining our lives but saving the planet...cheerio and hurrah!'

We need more oil/coal/shail/ - nothing the climate change cult is selling changes that dynamic. Nothing. Build all the alternative energy programs - I'm happy to support - but these programs and innovations aren't ready for prime time.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.